Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Installation - necessity of windows 95 files?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 fizzybrain

fizzybrain
  • Members
  • 4 posts
  •  
    Scotland

Posted 05 July 2008 - 10:44 PM

Are the windows 95 required to make the installation work, or are they just to keep it small?
i.e. if I just use the windows 98 files, will the installation complete at all (though presumably with a larger end result)?
I have a copy (two, in fact) of the win98 CD handy, but the win95 CD has been consigned to the Someday Pile in my cellar, and even then I'm not sure of which version it is.
All I want is a windows 98 installation so that I can run Synergy so that I can use the mouse and keyboard on one computer to control my main computer on which all the i/o has been terminated with extreme prejudice. I was hoping to install to a 64MB compactflash card in an IDE adapter (I'll install it on a larger drive and then move the finished installation across to the CF) - so it doesn't matter if the installation is a bit bigger than the 18MB (but of course smaller means faster boot-up).

So:
a - do I really *need* to use the windows 95 files?
b - how crucial is it that they are from 4.00.950?
Ta,

#2 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 06 July 2008 - 08:48 AM

Hmmm, :) I've got some bad news and some good news :)....


BAD news :):
Both points are crucial, AFAIK.

GOOD news :):
you can get the files from:
http://www.dr-hoiby....IconIn256Color/
(Explorer)


http://web.archive.o...ck1/Default.asp
(comdlg32.dll and shell32.dll)

courtesy of the Wayback Machine. :)

Read these:
http://www.911cd.net...o...12326&st=93
http://www.boot-land...opic=2681&st=24
(just in case)

jaclaz

#3 fizzybrain

fizzybrain
  • Members
  • 4 posts
  •  
    Scotland

Posted 06 July 2008 - 05:39 PM

:) Grazie!

This will *significantly* improve my life/employment prospects/etc. Doing video & graphics work without a mouse is challenging to say the least.

Thanks again,
Fizzybrain

Share and Enjoy

#4 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 06 July 2008 - 06:22 PM

This will *significantly* improve my life/employment prospects/etc. Doing video & graphics work without a mouse is challenging to say the least.



Hmmm, if I may, doing video & graphics work on a Win9x machine is ALREADY challenging enough, even with a mouse....:)

I guess you use a wired, ball mouse, connected to the serial port with a DB9 connector, just to stay on the retro theme....
:)

Happy to know you are up and running ...ahem .... crawling. :)

jaclaz

#5 fizzybrain

fizzybrain
  • Members
  • 4 posts
  •  
    Scotland

Posted 07 July 2008 - 01:33 AM

Hmmm, if I may, doing video & graphics work on a Win9x machine is ALREADY challenging enough, even with a mouse....:)

:)
No no, you misunderstand.

I have a 3.2GHz P4 running KDE Linux, with an effective screen of 2700x1024, but the USB controller got killed (by me - oops), so I cannot plug a mouse into it. I will use the lesser laptop (a 486SX 33MHz) as a "mouse server" - I will run Synergy on both machines and when the cursor leaves the win98 screen it will magically appear on the Linux machine.

Cool, or what? :)

Though I have just found that normal win98 doesn't like running on a 486SX (supposedly it wants a DX), grrr... but maybe mindows would be different. Any thoughts on this?

BUT, I found a windows 95 CD, and apparently a minimal installation of win95 will be about 50MB - well below my threshold. So hopefully I can install win95, network drivers and synergy (and solitaire :) ) and that will be it.

<pauses while attempting installation on other machine...>

GAH! the version of win95 which I have here needs 97MB for the installation process.
Damn.

The bottom line - I need to get a windows 9x system running in less than 61MB disk space *TOTAL* (including temporary setup files). I have a parallel port CDROM though.
This will take some thought.

Hmmm....

#6 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 07 July 2008 - 07:15 AM

Yep, though a bit complex, the idea is great.

I too simply love Sinergy. :)

486Sx reminds me more of Windows 3.x rather than Win9x, at the time when Windows95 came out, in it's practical out-of-standard 26 installation floppies :), common machines were Dx2, mostly 66Mhz and a few Dx4 100 Mhz, and some newish were the first Pentiums.

I remember vaguely a 386Sx co-processor software emulator, but cannot remember if it was used with Win95 or Win98....:)

I'll check if I can find some info....

It should be possible to make a Win95 under 50 Mb, though, as well as a CD-ROM only one.

I'll let you know...

jaclaz

#7 fizzybrain

fizzybrain
  • Members
  • 4 posts
  •  
    Scotland

Posted 07 July 2008 - 11:30 AM

Yep, though a bit complex, the idea is great.
...
It should be possible to make a Win95 under 50 Mb, though, as well as a CD-ROM only one.


If you can suggest a better way of getting a mouse (and preferably an external keyboard as well) to work with this machine I'd be delighted to hear it!
1. The machine has only USB, IEEE1394, modem, InfraRed, ethernet ports
2. USB, bluetooth and pcmcia both dead (IR - ?)
- if there was such a thing as a firewire mouse I'd be fine!

I've resurrected the hard disk on the "mouse server" and it's running win95, hurrah. But the disk is really noisy, and not reliable. I've got the network card working (at least it's pinging the outside world). I haven't got synergy running yet (cannot load winsock library), but I'll try reinstalling windows from scratch, and then if that works copy that completed installation to the CF-IDE drive.

It occurs to me that a mostly-read-only win95 (but running from CF-IDE drive rather than CD-ROM) would be the ultimate goal, to minimise writing to the CF card and prolong its life. However, do they not involve using a lot of RAM as a ramdisk? - I only have 8MB (not expandable).

Engage Time Machine - destination 1995!

#8 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 07 July 2008 - 12:39 PM

Got this snippet of info, said to be part of MS take on the issue:

DX versus SX processors.

"Although the minimum requirement to run Windows 95 is a 386SX-based processor, the SX processor is not a full 32-bit CPU. The SX-based processor accesses memory using 32-bit addressing, but it accesses data in 16-bit increments. Although Windows 95 will run on an SX-based processor, you will most likely not be sastisfied with the perceived performance when compared to a 16-bit operating system such as Windows 3.1."



About size, probably you can get away with DRIVESPACE :)

Though "base" requirements should be less than 50 Mb:
http://support.micro...kb/138349/en-us

Just for the record, an old page about putting Win9x on Zip disks:
http://web.archive.o....com/win95.html

For your particular intended use, start here:
http://www.geocities...in95/index.html
http://www.geocities...in95/ramwin.htm

You can also try if this works for your scope:
http://www.msfn.org/...5Mb-t28825.html

jaclaz




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users